Last week Sara Khan, who is the British government’s “adviser for social cohesion and resilience,” issued an official report detailing what she terms “freedom-restricting harassment,” that is, intimidation that makes people afraid to discuss certain topics. Praising Khan’s report, Nick Cohen writes that this harassment amounts to “a blasphemy law in the UK and the rest of the West.” This law is an unusual one:

No Parliament voted for it. No court enforces it. There is no presumption of innocence, and no possible appeal against conviction—even when the sentence is death.

Yet, writes Cohen, that makes it no less real, as the example, cited by Khan, of a teacher who showed his class pictures of Mohammad, the pope, and Jesus makes clear:

A parent of a child in the class called the teacher to say that the image of the prophet should not have been shown to pupils, before warning that “there will be repercussions.” Pictures of the teacher, his partner, his home, and car were shared on Instagram, Snapchat, and WhatsApp, alongside such exhortations as “let’s sort this out for the prophet” and “if u see him u know what to do.”

The school and the British state refused to treat the threats to the teacher as an attack on the principles of a free society. Far from defending him, the school suspended him, and said on no account was he to talk to his colleagues. Not content with that, they suspended two other teachers who had taught the same lesson. . . . The teacher contacted the police. So frightened was he by their insouciance, he and his family fled.

In a statement released on social media on Monday, the president-elect declared that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration, “there will be all hell to pay” for those who “perpetrated these atrocities against humanity.” But will Hamas take such a threat seriously? And, even if Donald Trump decides to convert his words into actions after taking office, exactly what steps could he take? Ron Ben-Yishai writes:

While Trump lacks direct military options against Hamas—given Israel’s ongoing actions—he holds three powerful levers to pressure the group into showing some flexibility on the hostage deal or to punish it if it resists after his inauguration. The first lever targets Hamas’s finances, focusing on its ability to fund activities after the fighting ends. This extends beyond Gaza to Lebanon and other global hubs where Hamas derives strength. . . . Additionally, Trump could pressure Qatar to cut off its generous funding and donations to the Islamist organization.

The other levers are also financial rather than military: increasing sanctions on Iran to force it to pressure Hamas, and withholding aid for the reconstruction of Gaza until the hostages are released. In Ben-Yishai’s view, “Trump’s statement undoubtedly represents a positive development and could accelerate the process toward a hostage-release agreement.”